If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

There's some excellent fighting to be had in the area around Howling Pass, as we saw last night. The winding canyon roads are a particular favourite for setting up ambushes from the surrounding cliffs. And Howling pass itself with all the different ways in is a pleasure to assault and by no means an easy capture if well defended.

BURP are a fine group of Goons who I used to run with when I started playing PS2. When I ditched my Pro7 account (Electrophotonic) I gave RPS a shot and found a more active outfit but with much the same laid-back style I had gotten used to in BURP (check their thread and videos http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3518009).

I'm all for a collaboration, preferably even closer than we currently are in the Vanu Accord!

"Quantacat's name is still recognised even if he watches on with detached eyes like Peter Molyneux over a cube in 3D space, staring at it with tears in his eyes, softly whispering... Someday they'll get it." - The Conclave

Ride: Ill never forget my first strat night (the first strat night, coincidentally)... I doubt many of you will actually remember the details, but there was a point at which we were attacking one of the major points, and there was a bit of tank opposition on an adjacent hill on the way in a really rocky hilly area.

After some standard general tank battle stuff, most of the unit moved off, but me and (i think?) grible gunning, who may have been around at that point, went up the road and around the back of this hill and attacked the tanks from behind whilst the remaining friendlies were still being shelled by them.

Needless to say, I destroyed something like 6-7 tanks in a row, and they didnt seem to even acknowledge i was there because of the friendly tank column moving away to their side that they were fixated on. We essentialy stopped the tank defence!

Unfortunatly, I became seperated from the group, and at that point i didnt know the map well enough to get to them, so stumbled onto some other tanks, who proceeded to blow me the hell up :'(.. if it was grible, he might remember this point as we were on a hill on the way to joining the group, and there were three tanks that shot us.. Tried to get away for him to repair, but it ended in tears.

I say it was grible, because i think i can remember the scotch twang, however that might just be my imagination!

BURP people to add if you are/want to PL:
Fumble, Fishstick, Skyfire, Picer, YOLO, Smut, Buttbuttbuttbutt, Bigfatflyingbloke and Gort

We will just communicate via /tell in-game to make it as easy as possible. I know some folks don't pay attention to chat, so start watching out for tells! The overall plan is just to try to help eachothers out and work together.

I'm sorry for getting pissed off last night. I'm sorry for speaking over you Grible. I just didn't find any space to talk/ask/anything as there was none.

We have in the past come to the conclosion that if we are over 30 people and in agreement we should split comms. Last night a very small majority (like one dude more) wanted to split channels. This was still treated as some sort of "let's go strat and shut the fuck up"-sentiment and the others did not accept that. Therefore, arguments. In the end the comms got split anyway, because of said arguments.

To go through this again:

I see no point in NOT splitting channels if we are three squads on three bases with 10 people in each all relaying information with the style of "Onatha - Charlie - Sundie to the west". There is quite simply no point with this form of communication. This is the end we reached with not split comms last night.

My intention was NEVER to "go strategic" or to change the fact that it was a casual night (regarding this - we already were playing strategically since we were following orders and splitting). All I wanted was for communication to actually work.

A lot of us find it highly annoying and very unplayable when comms are so messy. I simply can't and do not want to play when there's always three people overlapping in Mumble. I know your point was that the only ones talking over you was us assholes that wanted to go split channels, but I disagree. Everyone was talking over everyone as this is the only way to communicate when you split squads over very seperate objectives.

I still can't understand why some people just refuse to use split channels. I have never ever got in a squad where it was quiet or there was no banter. Never. If people tend to experience this, then we need to encourage people to talk more. After we split yesterday, we told jokes and talked constantly. There was room for that since there was also room for orders since we were like 20 people. This is my main argument for splitting channels - there is room for more jokes, more banter, more general talking and there is still room for orders. There is no downside to splitting channels.

Remember - the common misconception that split channels = shut up or that stratgir = shut up IS NOT TRUE and never has been. I still do not know why some people think this except that it gets mentioned here on the forums for some reason, often by people that never has played stratgir. The only time people need to be quiet is when receiving orders or if leaders are talking in leader channel and they get overwhelmed. This is exactly the same way we said we were going to handle things when we did not have split comms yesterday.

Is there any way we can solve this for the future without having to have two platoons? The special giraffes squad will not be enough, as there is always more then 12 people that prefer split channels on a normal night.

I will be super clear with this in a seperate post here. I did _not_ intend to "go stratgir" and make it a stratgir night. This seems to be the way you interpreted it Grible and you seemed to think I was forcing this. We were already playing exactly like stratgir. What everyone saw last night before we split was how stratgir is done, except that we were in the same channel.

Split channels does not automatically mean stratgir and comms discipline. There is no need for comms discipline in split channels unless orders are being told. There is need for comms discipline in a platoon wide channel, though, which we discussed. For me, a casual night does not automatically imply platoon wide chat simply because we must, if we're a lot of people and it's not working (we have agreed upon this in the past).

And again - stratgir _does not_ mean you need to shut the fuck up, never talk and that all leaders yell and are mean. This is NOT how stratgir is done. If you have had this experience with stratgir, send any of the PLs a pm.

oh please, currently, the vanu accord is a joke. Everytime I needed backup, there was noone around. I doubt that is the reason for doing something like that.

I've stopped bothering with the TS as often. When I got involved they had just set it up. As is stands now there are either no commanders in there (so no one to talk with) or too many and it crowds out our Mumble.

The thing to do is get in contact with them using /t. I tend to do that quite a bit. I've had them support us and supported them on many occasions. It does require getting to know & recognise names though. They're up on the TVA forums.

Is there any way we can solve this for the future without having to have two platoons? The special giraffes squad will not be enough, as there is always more then 12 people that prefer split channels on a normal night.

SpecGiraffes can easily be >12. There's also the platoon 2 chanel.

Squads in game mean nothing apart from squad beacons. They are a useful format for stratgir nights, but outside of stratgir there is no need to have channels and squads match.

The easiest solution is for those who want a quiet channel to move themselves to SpecGiraffes or Platoon 2, setup someone in the PL channel there as well as the Platoon 1 PL channel. It doesn't require any shuffling about of people within the platoon into this or that squad.

As long as the two people in the leader channels are communicating, those who want something quieter can just move channel.

Squads in game mean nothing apart from squad beacons. They are a useful format for stratgir nights, but outside of stratgir there is no need to have channels and squads match.

The easiest solution is for those who want a quiet channel to move themselves to SpecGiraffes or Platoon 2, setup someone in the PL channel there as well as the Platoon 1 PL channel. It doesn't require any shuffling about of people within the platoon into this or that squad.

As long as the two people in the leader channels are communicating, those who want something quieter can just move channel.

I don't get why that's so difficult?

But then we are, in fact, splitting channels. That's what seen as so controversial and what the entire argument was about. We were already playing exactly as Stratgir is played.

I fully get that Grible and others got upset by us "forcing" split channels by putting the idea forward and then moving after the argument. Would it have been okay if we just said we'll start our own and split on our own then? I mean, that's the exact same result in the end - you have two groups of about 15-20 in two channels. Yes, I did suggest we just fold in to squads on mumble, but that was because we were three group at that time - not two. If we were two (a+b and c+d for example) as we were later basically, we could've just used platoon 1 and 2 - which we did in the end.

What I saw it as, and how I felt yesterday, was that we were not allowed to do this at all - we were all going to be in the same channel wether we who do not enjoy that liked it or not. That was how I interpreted the other sides arguments, and that's what pissed me off.

Splitting in two is the best way imho, then we have enough people 12-24'ish in a group to have a nice chatty mumble and enough people to actually do something worthwhile. Yesterday was just... bad from all sides during the argument, hell i have no idea what people were so bloody confused about. The coms were clear if you actually listen to them and not go "WHAT SUNDIE!" as soon as someone says "Sundy east of the techplant" and you are at a biolab. Yes 30+ can often start to get abit too crowded but personally i hate the 12 man squads because often it feels like we are doing nothing but waiting for orders or ghost capping and unless you are in the squad with the more chatty people its kinda quiet with little banter. Splitting squads also puts alot more pressure on the current Baloon leader to have individual orders for each squad since squad leaders rarely take the initiative and do stuff on their own. Unless its a Stratgir night were the SLs have volunteered.

Most people just want somewhere to go and shoot stuff with the occasional "HOLY CRAP THAT GALAXY FLIPPED OUT!" and general banter. I just think people need to chill out and if needed split into two platoons if needed.

I'd like to bring this up for everyone who may not be familiar with group psychology or group dynamics theory. I am in no way an expert or educated professional, but what little I do know tends to help me keep a level head in group interactions, such as this. It is especially important to note that conflicts are a natural part of the development of a group like hits trying to achieve something together, and that we should not be afraid of it, as such, but try to stick to it and we will sort things out eventually.

Building on Tuckman’s model and based on her own empirical research as well as the foundational work of Wilfred Bion, Susan Wheelan proposed a “unified” or “integrated” model of group development (Wheelan, 1990; Wheelan, 1994a). This model, although linear in a sense, takes the perspective that groups achieve maturity as they continue to work together rather than simply go through stages of activity. In this model “early” stages of group development are associated with specific issues and patterns of talk such as those related to dependency, counter-dependency, and trust which precede the actual work conducted during the “more mature” stages of a group's life. The table below describes each one of these phases.

Stage I Dependency and Inclusion

The first stage of group development is characterized by significant member dependency on the designated leader, concerns about safety, and inclusion issues. In this stage, members rely on the leader and powerful group members to provide direction. Team members may engage in what has been called “pseudo-work,” such as exchanging stories about outside activities or other topics that are not relevant to group goals.

Stage II Counterdependency and Fight

In the second stage of group development members disagree among themselves about group goals and procedures. Conflict is an inevitable part of this process. The group’s task at Stage 2 is to develop a unified set of goals, values, and operational procedures, and this task inevitably generates some conflict. Conflict also is necessary for the establishment of trust and a climate in which members feel free to disagree with each other.

Stage III Trust / Structure

If the group manages to work through the inevitable conflicts of Stage 2, member trust, commitment to the group, and willingness to cooperate increase. Communication becomes more open and task-oriented. This third stage of group development, referred to as the trust and structure stage, is characterized by more mature negotiations about roles, organization, and procedures. It is also a time in which members work to solidify positive working relationships with each other

Stage IV Work / Productivity

As its name implies, the fourth stage of group development is a time of intense team productivity and effectiveness. Having resolved many of the issues of the previous stages, the group can focus most of its energy on goal achievement and task accomplishment

Final

Groups that have a distinct ending point experience a fifth stage. Impending termination may cause disruption and conflict in some groups. In other groups, separation issues are addressed, and members’ appreciation of each other and the group experience may be expressed.

TL;DR: The honeymoon is over, the infatuation has passed, and now we need to work a little to set some routines in place.

I do not intend to imply that any specific people are losing their heads over this, because I quite frankly haven't seen any sign of that, but more as a precautionary measure, to avoid bad blood.

Last edited by EsotericReverie; 06-02-2013 at 11:13 AM.
Reason: Moved the link

Some people can handle three people speaking at once and make out what they are saying. I am not capable of this. It also drives me nuts.Therefore, I could not hear what the orders were as they were also updated frequently since we were just pushing upwards without much contest.

What you said about "sundy east of the techplant" is not usable information for the squads that are not there (we were usually three squads on three different bases). It clutters their communication when they are at the same time saying "sundy northwest of the bio lab". There is also quite easy to mess the two up, and when you have to say where the thing is - since the group is divided - splitting channels comes naturally. What is the purpose of not splitting at this point? You are effectively already splitting, except you are also taking in information you do not need in a very information rich game.

I do not know why you think 12 man squads imply ghost capping. It implies teamwork and sticking together, and more often then not working with another squad. What you lose is cross-squad communication and you might miss a sundy or two. What you gain is breathing room for stories, banter, jokes and also room for intel and orders.

We already had split orders for split squads and leading SLs last night - but in the same channel. I applaud Grible for being brave and trying this, and it worked very well, apart from the communication.

Again, I fail to see why or how the general idea that split channels - or stratgir - implies that you can't have general banter. We have more general banter in stratgir then any other night. We have more personal talk on stratgir then any other night. We have more HOLY SHIT moments in stratgir then any other night. The reason is that we have room for this, and I am very, very tired of the notion that split channels means comms discipline and that people are not allowed to talk.

If the only way we can agree upon how to split, I suggest allowing - without hassle - people to split off in to a seperate 15-20 people channel if it's needed on ANY night and this way also allowing split channels. This DOES NOT mean that it will be forced strategic play. I repeat - IT DOES NOT MEAN STRATGIR STUFF TAKES OVER EVERYDAY PLAY. It just means comms will be clearer and that those of us (we are not a miniority btw, I'd say it's close to 50/50) that do not like big chatty groups are not forced in to that.

Hello! Since I think it was actually largely my fault this got started as a thing I should probably speak up. I'm going to do a few short posts since the forum eats long ones.

I've chilled out now Ridebird and I'm sorry for getting shouty at you - not your fault. From my perspective this is what happened:-

There are about ~20 people on Indar getting no where fast, all the big names leave for food and Grible gets dumped with PL.
A suggestion is made to move to Amerish - to try and prevent a TR lock - Grible agrees and trys to get everyone in the same place, by this time the numbers are rising.
We get to Amerish in bits and pieces arriving as we die/log on people are already pulling Gals and getting roups in so Grible sends tem off as they fill to various targets, all the while being asked to "do Hydra", "Go to here", "get that base", "clear alpha" you know normal PL stuff, by this time I'm getting into the swing of it and trying to sort squads out to do various things at once. Then it goes wrong.

For the record, I was drunk and preferred to be talking to the people I was playing with directly instead of somewhere at the arse end of the same co tinent.

I apologise for any annoyances to have caused, but now I learnt that splitting up the platoon without going stratgir can be fun too, and Id love to repeat the process with a Grible at the helm. And I hope he'll do it sooner rather than later.

"Quantacat's name is still recognised even if he watches on with detached eyes like Peter Molyneux over a cube in 3D space, staring at it with tears in his eyes, softly whispering... Someday they'll get it." - The Conclave

Mod ate my 1st post.
TLDR - I'm not annoyed with Ridebird - he's not wrong, we are coming at the same thing from opposite ends (and I have a higher tolerance for filtering important things from crap) I think if people want to lead then they should speak up at the time or shutup and grunt, Moving squads (groups of people) to seperate locations in a big mumble is fine if everyone accepts it's a short term thing, issuing suggestions in a large channel can easily be mistaken for orders - increasing chaos. People's tolerance for chaos is different.
Changing the channels and the leaders in the middle of a fight with people logging in at the same time having got part way through an operation is not a good idea.

Changing the channels and the leaders in the middle of a fight with people logging in at the same time having got part way through an operation is not a good idea.

This is the most important thing to note, I think. Thanks for pointing it out! It is probably possible to split comms in some way that makes most people happy, but it should be done at a good time. It might be worth taking a couple minutes off to sort things out, if comms turn into a mess and doesn't sort itself out.